Employment law 3 Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Employment law 3 - Assignment Example In this case, Woolsey signed an employment agreement which contained Employee Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure and Non-Circumvention Agreement. In this regard, Woolsey committed himself to not disclose third parties information about MediLink such as trade secrets. Woolsey also committed himself not to work for a competitor of MediLink for a period of three years after termination of Woolsey's employment. Woolsey can be argued to have breached Non-Disclosure and Non-Circumvention Agreement by coping hundreds of MediLink documents on his laptop, which he carried to-and-from his office. These agreements protect the ideas of the business deal. In addition, the employer spends effort and money training employees, and this should remain privacy especially on the way the company does business. Question B As the HR VP of MediLink, I would advice MediLink to treat the nurses as its employees. This is important because as company employees, the nurses will enjoy all benefits accrued to company employees. This translates to better provision of services to MediLink customers. Some of the benefits of having the nurses as MediLink employees are directly or indirectly connected to incentives employees get from the company. Some programs such healthcare programs, reward systems, and employment law that protect employees from unfair treatment by the employer would motivate the nurses to continue working for the MediLink and offer quality services to MediLink customers. Conversely, an employer has the right of control. The employer can dictate the means and the manner in which the employee performs the job. In addition, since MediLink customers’ supplies with uniform and equipments and some fees, it means that the customers entrusts all this to MediLink. Therefore, it would be vital for MediLink to treat nurses as its employees. Shaw v. Zedco Employment law prohibits sexual harassment in a workplace and is considered â€Å"to be a form of sexual discrimination, and it is stipulated under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act† (M, Paludi, and C, Paludi 6). Carpenter, Newman, and Whatley were alleged to have sexually harassed plaintiff and subjected to a hostile work environment. However, in order to determine the case, it is vital to point out some deliberations and facts concerning the law and the case at hand. Under Title VII, apart from the employers being required to prevent sexual harassment, they are also supposed to take reasonable care to promptly correct sexual harassment that has occurred (M, Paludi, and C, Paludi 6). In this case, the plaintiff reported the matter to Persons about alleged case of sexual harassment committed by her colleagues. Persons fired Carpenter and held disciplinary conferences with Newman and Whatley. In this regard, it is correct to argue that took the appropriate measures against the accused persons. In addition, Persons wrote to Plaintiff, urging her to reconsider leaving her job and informing her that ZED CO had hired a new manager for the Stockton facility and assured her of fair treatment. This means that the employer took reasonable care. In fact, for the employer to be legally responsible for sexual harassment, he must be aware that the harassment occurred and that he failed to take reasonable care. On a different dimension, it is crucial for employees experiencing sexual harassment in workplace, categorically and clearly say no to it. For example, if the behavior of his or her workmate offends

Analysis of how Joint Warfare was applied during Operation Just Cause Research Paper

Analysis of how Joint Warfare was applied during Operation Just Cause in Panama - Research Paper Example In order to tackle the future political challenges, there is a need for developing an army which is prepared for not only offensive and defensive activities, but also to maintain stability and to conduct supporting functions. The military operations in Haiti, Bosnia and Middle East demonstrate the requirement of joint forces in order to ensure better cooperation. The trends of joint operation in 21st century evidently reveal the fact that single military operations have become history. In order to rule in the rapidly changing environment, joint approach of military planning is considered as a critical success factor for any nation . The research paper provides an in-depth analysis on application of joint warfare during ‘Operation Just Cause’ in Panama. The objective of the research is to analyze how joint operations were implemented during Operation Just Cause. Besides, the paper also aims at understanding how Goldwater-Nichols Act had affected the planning of Operation Just Cause. Basic Description about Joint Operation The term, ‘Joint Operation’ denotes military movements which are undertaken by joint military forces. Joint operation principle is established on a sound foundation of war philosophy, concept and practical knowledge. Joint operation principles identify the basic and the advantageous impacts of ‘unity in command’ and the cooperation which results from integration and harmonization of military operations. This cooperation can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of military force. The benefits of joint operation are spread beyond the operational background across the array of military actions2. ‘Joint Warfare’ is often used by the military forces of the US in conjunction with other countries and agencies. Joint warfare is required in order to create a decisive and a combined combat strength. In joint warfare philosophy, the military organizations incorporate and synchronize their air forces, land forces, navy forces and the special operation forces in order to accomplish strategic and operational objectives. The objective of joint warfare is to enhance the effectiveness of military assault3. The Origin of Joint Concepts The history of the US reveals the significance of joint operations. The war of 1812 in between the US and Great Britain provides a great example with regard to success of joint operation. However, the operation was criticized due to misperceptions, low level of cooperation and coordination. The first joint military board in the US was established in the year 1903. The joint board was aimed at planning joint military operations and resolving issues on common concerns. Yet, the joint board was provided with little right to solve